Ecce Homo

[Chips Rafferty]

Check out the archetypical Americhrischun hypocrite.

I wonder if this WASP Wunderkind will advise G-e-e-zus to barm the disloyal Negroes, and the atheistic Christ-denyin' Chinks and A-rabs, into submitting to His celestial fascism when he goes to his “final reward.”

Let’s hope this maggot's remuneration is half as hot as he helped make it for millions of gooks and coons.

 

[Gunny]

Nope. Jus the Christ-denying Aussies.

 

[Psychoblues]

Maybe it's jaysus denying all that ain't in this brood?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Nope. Jus the Christ-denying Aussies.

Okay then, how about putting America's Jesus endorsed jackboot on another’s foot?

Suppose Tariq Aziz (a practising CHRISCHUN) advised Saddam Hashein to barm the Mississippi levees and drown millions of sub-human Americans - for the heinous crime of, essentially, using a different accounting system to Iraq. How would you feel about that?

Accountancy systems, if America's wars have nothing to do with rapine and "religion" (i.e. the root of a people's sense of racial/national superiority), as you claim, is fundiementally the only other thing the Christapitalist wars could be about.

No?

Didn’t think so. American's intrinsic narcissism renders them completely incapable of putting themselves in the “evil” other’s shoes.

 

[Gunny]

Okay then, how about putting America's Jesus endorsed jackboot on another’s foot?

Suppose Tariq Aziz (a practising CHRISCHUN) advised Saddam Hashein to barm the Mississippi levees and drown millions of sub-human Americans - for the heinous crime of, essentially, using a different accounting system to Iraq. How would you feel about that?

Accountancy systems, if America's wars have nothing to do with rapine and "religion" (i.e. the root of a people's sense of racial/national superiority), as you claim, is fundiementally the only other thing the Christapitalist wars could be about.

No?

Didn’t think so. American's intrinsic narcissism renders them completely incapable of putting themselves in the “evil” other’s shoes.

I love the way you pose the question, then presume to answer for the person you posed it to. I don't care what Tariq Aziz worships, and it's quite obvious that folk of the US-hating variety INDEED have a different accounting system than we do.

Since I'm not much a relativist for the purpose of excusing my enemy's evil, I see no point in taking up every argument under the presumption I am wrong and he is right.

That would be as opposed to you looking at EVERY arguments from the viewpoint that the US is evil and everyone else its victim.

 

[Ruby]

I love the way you pose the question, then presume to answer for the person you posed it to. I don't care what Tariq Aziz worships, and it's quite obvious that folk of the US-hating variety INDEED have a different accounting system than we do.

Since I'm not much a relativist for the purpose of excusing my enemy's evil, I see no point in taking up every argument under the presumption I am wrong and he is right.

That would be as opposed to you looking at EVERY arguments from the viewpoint that the US is evil and everyone else its victim.

Actually it would only require you to apply the same standards and rules to yourself as you do to others...but I think Chips post went WAAAY over your head.

 

[Gunny]

Actually it would only require you to apply the same standards and rules to yourself as you do to others...but I think Chips post went WAAAY over your head.

Problem is, you using the term "I think." I understand perfectly well what Chips is trying to say, and of course can see exactly why you agree with him. But let's forget the smokescreen ....

YOU and Chips think we should apply HIGHER standards to ourselves, not just same. It's obvious in his post. Your extremism is so blatantly obvious it's just a joke.

 

[Ruby]

Problem is, you using the term "I think." I understand perfectly well what Chips is trying to say, and of course can see exactly why you agree with him. But let's forget the smokescreen ....

YOU and Chips think we should apply HIGHER standards to ourselves, not just same. It's obvious in his post. Your extremism is so blatantly obvious it's just a joke.

Not higher standards, the same standards.

We want to make our own laws and have domain over our own domestic policies...so does every other nation and we need to back off and allow that as we expect people to do that for us.

Here is a good example...lets take Iran.

Now here we are and we need to place ourselves in the SAME position that we put Iran in and then see how we would view those same actions that the US have committed.

Lets say that in 1953 the Iranian govt overthrew our govt and installed a dictator who was willing to cater more to Irans needs than the US's and that in the decades of this Iranian installed dictator we suffered horribly under his brutal policies against any of us who dared speak up or challenge his dictatorship.

We finally get the momentum up and we rise up and overthrow this dictator and install our own govt. The one we install is certainly far from perfect but it is OURS and done by US, the people. Iran has many criticisms of our govt but its really not their RIGHT to say is it?

Then Iran backs Canada in an uprovoked invasion of us. We are now at war because Canada attacked and Iran is one of the nations helping to supply aid (weapons, chemicals, logistical support etc). Then Canada starts using chemical/biological warfare on american towns and people are dying in horrific ways and we go to international community but Iran wont condem it and in fact Iran and its allies are HELPING to supply the chemicals Canada is using against us.

We fight for many bloody years and we manage to maintain ourselves and not be defeated, but the human cost is HUGE. We suffered, all of us have lost someone in this horrible battle.

Then some years later Canadas leadership isnt doing what Iran wants..so Iran invades them to change the regime. So Iran is now attacking our neighbor and has its military on our border and is currently making more threats claiming we are making nuclear weapons...(yet Iran has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons) and we arent building them nor do they have ANY evidence we are...but they threaten us anyway. We allow inspectors in, the inspectors say we arent building weapons and can find no evidence that we are. Now Iran just ignores this and keeps accusing us anyway and Iran and its powerful allies now want to sanction us and keep threatening to invade us.

Iran calls us aggressive but it is them who overthrew our govt and installed a brutal dictator, it is them that backed our neighbor in an aggressive war against us, it is them who supplied and condoned biological warfare against us, it is them who have huge stockpiles of wmd, its them who are invading nations based on false claims of WMD and now are sitting ON OUR BORDER with their military threatening us again and SAY ITS OUR FAULT and we ARE DANGEROUS!

How would you be viewing that? All I did was lay out exactly what has occured but traded places for Iran and the US.

If you apply the same standards, then you have to admit, its the US who is dangerous and exceeds its bounds legally as well as morally.

 

[Darwin]

Not higher standards, the same standards.

We want to make our own laws and have domain over our own domestic policies...so does every other nation and we need to back off and allow that as we expect people to do that for us.

Here is a good example...lets take Iran.

Now here we are and we need to place ourselves in the SAME position that we put Iran in and then see how we would view those same actions that the US have committed.

Lets say that in 1953 the Iranian govt overthrew our govt and installed a dictator who was willing to cater more to Irans needs than the US's and that in the decades of this Iranian installed dictator we suffered horribly under his brutal policies against any of us who dared speak up or challenge his dictatorship.

We finally get the momentum up and we rise up and overthrow this dictator and install our own govt. The one we install is certainly far from perfect but it is OURS and done by US, the people. Iran has many criticisms of our govt but its really not their RIGHT to say is it?

Then Iran backs Canada in an uprovoked invasion of us. We are now at war because Canada attacked and Iran is one of the nations helping to supply aid (weapons, chemicals, logistical support etc). Then Canada starts using chemical/biological warfare on american towns and people are dying in horrific ways and we go to international community but Iran wont condem it and in fact Iran and its allies are HELPING to supply the chemicals Canada is using against us.

We fight for many bloody years and we manage to maintain ourselves and not be defeated, but the human cost is HUGE. We suffered, all of us have lost someone in this horrible battle.

Then some years later Canadas leadership isnt doing what Iran wants..so Iran invades them to change the regime. So Iran is now attacking our neighbor and has its military on our border and is currently making more threats claiming we are making nuclear weapons...(yet Iran has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons) and we arent building them nor do they have ANY evidence we are...but they threaten us anyway. We allow inspectors in, the inspectors say we arent building weapons and can find no evidence that we are. Now Iran just ignores this and keeps accusing us anyway and Iran and its powerful allies now want to sanction us and keep threatening to invade us.

Iran calls us aggressive but it is them who overthrew our govt and installed a brutal dictator, it is them that backed our neighbor in an aggressive war against us, it is them who supplied and condoned biological warfare against us, it is them who have huge stockpiles of wmd, its them who are invading nations based on false claims of WMD and now are sitting ON OUR BORDER with their military threatening us again and SAY ITS OUR FAULT and we ARE DANGEROUS!

How would you be viewing that? All I did was lay out exactly what has occured but traded places for Iran and the US.

If you apply the same standards, then you have to admit, its the US who is dangerous and exceeds its bounds legally as well as morally.

Yep

 

[Diuretic]

Yep

Stop babbling

 

[Chips Rafferty]

I love the way you pose the question, then presume to answer for the person you posed it to. I don't care what Tariq Aziz worships, and it's quite obvious that folk of the US-hating variety INDEED have a different accounting system than we do.

Since I'm not much a relativist for the purpose of excusing my enemy's evil, I see no point in taking up every argument under the presumption I am wrong and he is right.

That would be as opposed to you looking at EVERY arguments from the viewpoint that the US is evil and everyone else its victim.

Since I'm not much a relativist for the purpose of excusing my enemy's evil

E-n-e-m-y-s. Seppo shorthand for “completely innocent and defenceless victims.”

Or, "Bubba Bush says it; I believe it; that settles it!" Scary stuff!

A military automaton like you couldn’t begin to imagine how hard it is for sane folk to envisage a modern nation being reduced to a rabidly religious mob of 300 million gormless lemmings.

It is inconceivable that alleged human beings would willingly live in a Bible-believin’ Bedlam lead by a Stricture citing, booze and cocaine addicted, harebrained version of Hitler straight out of a Monty Python skit.

You poor barkingly mad bugger! I know if you were out of your right mind you wouldn’t blame us one bit for seeing America as a worse threat to normal non-Chrischun civilisation than the bubonic plague.

 

[dilloduck]

Not higher standards, the same standards.

We want to make our own laws and have domain over our own domestic policies...so does every other nation and we need to back off and allow that as we expect people to do that for us .

Yes we do--Will those in Australia and Sweden kindly STFU.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Yes we do--Will those in Australia and Sweden kindly STFU.

We will, Dildofuck…when you stop trying to apply your laws to our people.

 

[dilloduck]

We will, Dildofuck…when you stop trying to apply your laws to our people.

Promise?

 

[Gunny]

E-n-e-m-y-s. Seppo shorthand for “completely innocent and defenceless victims.”

Yeah, I consider all folks with a couple pounds of C4 on their chest "innocent and defenseless victims." You are SO full of it.
Or, "Bubba Bush says it; I believe it; that settles it!" Scary stuff!

A military automaton like you couldn’t begin to imagine how hard it is for sane folk to envisage a modern nation being reduced to a rabidly religious mob of 300 million gormless lemmings.

It is inconceivable that alleged human beings would willingly live in a Bible-believin’ Bedlam lead by a Stricture citing, booze and cocaine addicted, harebrained version of Hitler straight out of a Monty Python skit.

It's inconceivable that you have so little to do that you want to spend your time trying to tell me who and/or what to believe in and how to live. Typical wannabe-intellectual ... "do as I say not as I do, cuz I know what's best for you.

You poor barkingly mad bugger! I know if you were out of your right mind you wouldn’t blame us one bit for seeing America as a worse threat to normal non-Chrischun civilisation than the bubonic plague.

Sure I blame you. You're full of shit. You spew lies and hate, simple as that. Just another wannabe envious of the big dog who can't handle it.

If you need for me to explain that in simpler terms, let me know.

 

[Doug]

I'm a bit confused here.

The author of the article linked to in the first post attacks Billy Graham for blessing every war America has fought, which is true.

At the end of the article, he then contrasts Graham to Reverend Berrigan, who

was involved in the Normandy invasion and the “Battle of the Bulge” as a member of the U.S. Army.

Now, did Berrigan retroactively repudiate his participation in WWII? If so, I never heard about it. I think it's safe to say he didn't, and that he took towards that war the same attitude Graham took toward it, and that Graham took towards other wars.

And by the way, dams (equivalent to dykes) were bombed by our side in WWII.

So the holier-than-thou attitude seems unwarranted here. It's just a question of which particular wars you support.

And another point: many religious lefties like to play the game of oh-so-noble pacifist. But in fact they -- or some of them at least -- are hypocrites, because when a war-fighting machine comes along that they like -- say, one fighting for 'socialism' and 'social justice' and 'national liberation' -- then they endorse it and apologize for it. All the whooping and hollering and protesting goes out the window. This happened during and after the Vietnam war, when many American pacifists, including religious ones, swooned over the North Vietnamese Communists and endorsed their actions as they consolidated their one-party state rule over all of Vietnam, dragging into totalitarian penury.

So, please ... keep the I-am-so-pure-and-holy stuff for the liberal True Believers.

 

[Ruby]

Yes we do--Will those in Australia and Sweden kindly STFU.

Well maybe america should take that advice and not just STFU, but also stop bombing the fuck out of other nations and stop staging coups in other nations as well.

 

[Ruby]

Sure I blame you. You're full of shit. You spew lies and hate, simple as that. Just another wannabe envious of the big dog who can't handle it.

If you need for me to explain that in simpler terms, let me know.

Wow more junior high school projection. You really are such a coward who thinks he can hide it by hiding behind weapons and "we are big powerful nation and everyone is envious". You make it obvious that you simply cant go beyond very basic low level concepts.

 

[Doug]

Should the United States have intervened in any way to stop the Hutus butchering the Tutsis? Should we intervene in any way in Darfur? Should we intervene in any way in Burma? Should we have stopped the North Korean invasion of South Korea? Should we have gotten involved in WWII?

If a tsunami kills and displaces hundreds of thousands of people, should we send appropriate aid?

If a rampaging genocidal army kills and displaces hundreds of thousands of people, should we send appropriate aid?

 

[Ruby]

Should the United States have intervened in any way to stop the Hutus butchering the Tutsis? Should we intervene in any way in Darfur? Should we intervene in any way in Burma? Should we have stopped the North Korean invasion of South Korea? Should we have gotten involved in WWII?

If a tsunami kills and displaces hundreds of thousands of people, should we send appropriate aid?

If a rampaging genocidal army kills and displaces hundreds of thousands of people, should we send appropriate aid?

No military interferrence. Your best bet is to send humanitarian aid and to also work with govts using tactics like incentives or the International criminal court as well as working with the nations in the region who are neighbors to those who are in conflict.

Bombing people in conflict and adding more fighting and more violence isnt going to solve violence at all. Whether we like it or not we have a few facts to face.

First fact...human beings mostly come to their self determination via violence and outside interferrence usually PROLONGS the chaos, the violence, the suffering and the conflicts AND it denies them the very thing they are fighting for in the first place.

Second fact....outsiders NEVER interferre for altruistic reasons and their own motivations are just another conflict of struggle for the people to have to fight against.

In the rare instance that nations want to step into to stop a widespread genocide..it must be done by the international community with an emphasis on just rescuing people BUT maintaing a stance that LEAVES them their self determination which may mean allowing a civil war to continue but only stopping a genocide. This is one great reason to join the ICC, its one of the best ways to remove those committing genocide by arresting them and let them stand trial for their crimes...its so much better than bombing people as "help".

Of course you can always send humanitarian aid, that isnt a military intervention nor does it deny anyone their self determination but it shouldnt come with strings that they will use certain corps products or change their laws to favor us in any way....then its not aid, its coercion.